Re: Some Hard Truths for Ethical Vegetarians

Dreck wrote:
> > > 'Justification'? For what?
> >
> > For your personal choices and their consequences for animals.
>
> I'm not talking of my personal choices, 

You shuold be.

> but rather the farmer's actions, 

Buck passer.

> and that he is responsible for them.

No, you are.

> The hard truth is that they are killed by the
> farmer for profit, not for our food, as Michael
> claims.

Your claim that the farmer is responsible for profit motive is enabled 
and financially supported by your own interest in saving money. You have 
other options, far less lethal and far more humane, but you prefer a 
level of economy that allows for CDs in YOUR food production.

> > > > is valid *only* if you buy produce which is grown and
> > > > harvested in a more humane manner.
> > >
> > > Non sequitur.
> >
> > No, it does follow.
>
> I was talking of the the farmer's actions, not my
> choices, so your comment on my choices was
> indeed a non sequitur.

A farmer's actions are only one of your choices. You can raise your own 
food, PYO, co-op, etc., to minimize or eliminate CDs. You choose with 
your grocery budget to support that one choice which brings the highest 
number of CDs.

> > > The hard truth is that animals are intentionally
> > > killed for financial gain, not to feed the farmer's consumers
> > > as Michael claims.
> >
> > No
>
> Yes.

Neither of you is correct, but at least Michael is on the right track in 
accepting the role of demand upon how food is produced. You're wrong 
since you simply avoid the issue of supply and demand and engage in buck 
passing.

> > > I pay farmers in the same way I pay any other
> > > employee, and if my employees cause damage
> > > while going about their business, then they are
> > > fully responsible for any blame.
> >
> > Regarding employer/employee liability issues, if you'd mis-wired a car
> > and it caught fire, whom would the car's owner sue?
>
> Me, you fool.

No, your employer -- the garage -- would be sued.

> > You hire the farmer
> > to grow cheap food rather than humane food.
>
> False. I hire him to grow food, period. If his methods
> are inhumane, then he is blameworthy.

Only if he operates a monopoly. You DO have other choices. Your failure 
to excerise your more humane options is your own fault.

> > You have plenty other options
>
> Irrelevant. 

Entirely relevant.

> My change of grower will make no difference
> to him being culpable for the deaths he causes.

It will force him to change his methods, at least if enough people are 
concerned about CDs. That's how supply and demand work. You demand it, 
he'll supply it. Your lack of discrimination in your food equates to CDs.

> > yet you've selected the method with the highest amount of CDs.
>
> Unsupported speculation and false.

Borne out by your past statements.

> > You're not willing to put your own money where your own mouth is.
>
> Unsupported speculation and false.

Borne out by your past statements.

> > You're the culpable person in the CD chain.
>
> There is no causal link between my trade with him
> and the method he uses to satisfy my demand.

There absolutely is.

> It doesn't instruct him to farm one way or the other.

Then why do many farmers start growing organic?

> Those options are his, and he, being completely
> autonomous is reponsible for his actions. I blame him
> on the basis that he is a morally responsible agent
> carrying obligations to endure the consequences of his
>  actions. How many times must I repeat that before
> it finally sinks in?

No amount of repetition will make your false claims true.

> > > I don't believe I'm responsible for them,
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> My belief in not being responsible for the deaths
> caused by others is very relevant to my other
> beliefs in rights generally, for if I truly believed I
> was responsible for the deaths caused by farmers,
> I wouldn't buy from them. Likewise, if I were
> knowingly buying goods with a history of human
> collateral deaths, AND held a belief that I was
> responsible for them, I wouldn't buy from that
> source either. How does one hold a moral belief
> in being responsible and causal to the deaths of
> animals and humans while continuing to claim that
> THEIR victims have a right not to be THEIR
> victims?
>
>
> > Responsibility/culpability isn't a function of personal belief.
>
> I agree, so why do you *believe* I am culpable
> for the deaths of animals which were certainly
> killed by another's hand? Physical evidence tells
> you who is culpable for them, so for you to then
> claim that the responsibility for them segues from
> him to me through thin air is merely a belief on your
> part.

Under your "physical evidence" claim, the Nazi hierarchy weren't 
responsible for genocide since the underlings committed the atrocities. 
Same with any other war crimes, no?

It's not a matter of a "segue." It's supply and demand. You don't demand 
CD-free food. That's why the supply is small, but it IS available. You 
can grow it yourself or find someone who does.

> > > but if I did
> > > hold such a belief, how would I be able to continue
> > > buying from such a source while still claiming they
> > > have a right not to be intentionally killed for my
> > > personal gain?
> >
> > You have other options. Put your money where your big mouth is.
>
> Non sequitur, so I'll repeat my comment again;

Sequitur.

> "I don't believe I'm responsible for them, but if I did
>  hold such a belief, how would I be able to continue
>  buying from such a source while still claiming they
>  have a right not to be intentionally killed for my
>  personal gain?"

Responsibility is not a function of whether you *believe* you are or not.

<snip>
> > I'll say that consistency counts, even though such hypothetical
> > questions are irrelevant.
>
> These hypothetical questions are not irrelevant if
> one's consistency is to be measured. If you found
> that all your clothes were in fact made from the
> sweat and tears of forced child labour, would you
> blame yourself or the slaver who profited from
> his inhumane methods of production? 

Supply, demand. I don't buy cheap clothes, and I refuse to support 
sweatshops. I would blame myself for not being a good consumer.

> Likewise,
> if I should find that some food I ate came at the
> expense of animal's lives, why should I blame
> myself and not the farmer who profited from his
> inhumane methods of production?

You should hold yourself responsible for your actions, and that would 
include the way you spend your money. You buy from high-CD farming, you 
get higher-CD farming. That's how supply and demand work, Dreck.